Trevor Loudon's Videos Illustrate Serious Threats to America

Trevor Loudon's “America Under Siege” video series documents and explains how the United States is endangered by socialist and communist radical and violent activity and threats being promoted by Russian-supported socialist-communist and Islamic jihad organizations. Violent protests across America are not and have not been “spontaneous,” but highly organized and paid for by anti-American promoters of chaos, including organizations affiliated with the Democratic National Committee in support of Hillary Clinton.

These groups organize demonstrations and violent protests in support of radical Islam, Palestinian support against Israel and America, and foreign communist and socialist countries. Under Barack Obama's administration, these groups were tolerated and sometimes actively supported. Barack Obama is a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood and their front groups including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). These are terrorist-related groups who still have their people in the federal government in various offices, including Congress.

It should be a matter of principle that any people or entity which has adopted terrorism as its major strategy, such as the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, should not be trusted until they have changed their ways for a long, long time, if ever. This should preclude any pretense of a “peace process,” or a Palestinian state beside Israel (my opinion).

As Loudon's videos show, communist-socialist groups now command a substantial following of young people and college professors and other “intellectuals,” as well as the mainstream media and the Democratic “progressive” politicians. They are working feverishly in an attempt to bring down President Donald Trump, and with that to establish a socialist state. Their young followers have become convinced that Trump represents racism and fascism, and is like Hitler, etc., and that the socialist leaders are “anti-fascists." Through this lens of abysmal ignorance and readiness to believe the socialists' lies a great many are radicalized to the point that they might never change their views.

“America Under Siege: Soviet Islam” documents how the Soviet Union trained and used radical Islamists to sow chaos in the U.S., and how Putin has continued and expanded that effort. I recommend watching both of these videos, and also Loudon's video “America Under Siege: Antifa,” included in a recent post on this blog.

Loudon's “America Under Siege: Civil War” describes the now-familiar state of division in the U.S., showing how political radicals are working for chaos, thence destruction of America as a sovereign constitutional republic.

Can and Should Trump End Mueller's Witch Hunt Now?

By Eddie Howell

Will President Trump fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller? Can he? There are plenty of opinions being currently published addressing these questions. What would be the results of firing Mueller? Or the results of not firing him?

My own thoughts on this begin with the fact, as I believe it is a fact, that the Mueller investigation is a sham, a charade, and a witch hunt designed to destroy Donald Trump. It is an investigation in search of a crime. It is entirely unfair to the president and harmful to America. It is a drain on American taxpayers' money and resources which should be used to go after actual criminals.

Liberal law professor Alan Dershowitz has interesting comments on the problems of special counsel investigations and prosecutors going too far in looking for a crime in violation of the rights of people they are investigating. (YouTube video dated 07/22/2017)

Peter Beinart at The Atlantic thinks that the Trump team may regard firing Mueller as a good move, and I think that's probably correct. An article by Doyle McManus in The Los Angeles Times says, as do others, that if Trump moved to fire Mueller, it would bring on a constitutional crisis. A New York Times article headline says “Trump Can't Just Fire Mueller,”

It's in the interest of the Anti-Trump Witch Hunt to say that Trump can't fire Mueller and that if he did (or tried), it would bring on dire consequences. The Swamp seems to think the Trump presidency could not survive an attempt to fire Mueller, and hopes that if he doesn't fire the special counsel, Mueller will dig up enough dirt, real or imagined, to force Trump out and destroy his life as much as possible.

So, as Trump understands, regarding the Mueller investigation, he (Trump) is between a rock and a hard place. Should he suffer the consequences of removing Mueller now, or wait until Mueller announces his findings, which, whatever the facts may be, will be designed to damage Trump as much as possible. Trump, in making a decision to fire or not to fire, must choose between those two alternatives. Or so it seems to me.

I do not accept the statement that Trump cannot legally fire Mueller. His army of lawyers can figure out how to manipulate and exploit the regulations to accomplish Mueller's firing legally and effectively. The president has authority concerning regulations and their enforcement. He is head of the Executive Branch of government. Mueller is under the authority of the Executive Branch. The legal niceties can certainly be dealt with and the firing accomplished if the president decides to do it. What Mr. Trump must be concerned about is which choice is the better in terms of risk of damage to himself and America. Most of his voters still support him strongly. GOP members of Congress may speak against firing Mueller, but most Republican voters would support it, understanding that Mueller's role is simply part of the Swamp's hysterical hate campaign to destroy Trump, facts or no facts.

A Politico article by Matthew Nussbaum lists ways Trump could fire Mueller. It is not true that Trump can't fire Mueller. The article also suggests that if he did, Congress could bring back an independent counsel statute and bring back Mueller to continue, beyond Trump's grasp.

Congress would have to have a veto-proof majority for that to happen.

Another idea for Trump, if he wants to fire Mueller, might be to get Attorney General Jeff Sessions to un-recuse himself and fire Mueller. Then shut down the FBI Russia investigation.

The globalists and establishment denizens of the Swamp are determined to get rid of Trump, and they very well may yet do it whether Trump fires Mueller or not. But they may also be making a very big mistake if they think they can defeat Trump easily.

I would like see Mueller shown the exit. I think Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein should be fired as well. I hope he won't fire Sessions. But the only one who can or should make a final decision about firing Mueller is President Trump. It's not a question of whether he can do it, but, for the sake of his presidency and America, whether he should.

Obama's Mistake: Ready to Turn Syrian Tragedy into American Failure

Cropped version of File:Official portrait of Barack Obama.jpg.  (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Why, oh, why does President Obama think he can correct or improve anything by launching a military attack on Syria? There are so many things wrong with this, it's hard to know where to start. I am listing a few of the major reasons why I believe Obama's proposed attack is a very bad idea.

1. Obama has waited too long for military action to be of any benefit. Two years ago was the time to do something, if something was to be done. He chose not to. That was a good choice, but now the situation has changed so much that even if military action were a good idea now in some kind of theory, which it definitely is not, there are many complications that make it very unlikely to succeed in any significant way. Russia is Syria's supplier and champion. Hezbollah and various other entities have reinforced Assad to the point that without America's actual participation in the civil war, Assad is virtually assured of victory. Even if he were deposed, his replacement would be someone even worse. The rebels would soon set about to create an Islamic state that would hate America as much as Assad does, or more.

2. If there were any practicality to attacking Syria now, and there isn't, telegraphing the intention weeks in advance could only harm the chance of success of actually destroying anything that would affect the outcome in Syria.

3. The leaders of the so-called “free world,” not necessarily the sharpest these days, are at least smart enough to see that Obama's desired attack is a misguided idea. There would be little support in the international community for his actions, and much blame for America for things that would go wrong.

4. Just about everyone can see the utter hypocrisy of overreacting to the tragic gas attack – when Saddam Hussein was gassing his own countrymen during the George W. Bush years, Obama and his friends saw no need to do anything about it. Saddam killed many thousands more than Assad has thus far. Also, Obama knows that under Assad over 100,000 Syrians have died by means of bullets and bombs, but that has warranted no action on the part of the U.S. in Obama's estimation. But the people killed by conventional means are just as dead as those killed by poison gas.
   
   
5. Obama brought this “crisis” upon himself with his “red line” statements. It was a red line that seemed definite, but the consequences of crossing it (more than once) were anything but. It is mainly to avoid the embarrassment of not enforcing the red line at all that Obama now wants to attack Syria. As bad as the evil gas attack was, it does not warrant the response Obama wants to use.
   
   
6. Obama's proposed attack would require a supplemental appropriation by Congress since there is not sufficient funding to do it otherwise. It is doubtful that Congress wants to approve Obama's plan (to the extent he has any plan), and doing so would cost many millions and kill a good many people – for what? To save Obama's ego?
   
   
7. It seems obvious that this idea is poorly thought out in terms of its consequences. Secretary of State John Kerry emphasized that this would not be like Iraq, but if one examines the history of U.S. interventions in the Middle East under Obama, it's easy to see that nothing has worked out as well as was hoped. Libya has been changed from a dictatorship under Qaddafi into an Al-Qaeda stronghold. Egypt, where we have not intervened militarily but diplomatically, has endured an Islamist regime only recently removed. Egypt is now a horrifying place for its citizens, especially the Christians. The economy is in shambles. How long before someone thinks we must intervene militarily there, too? “Mission creep” is inevitable in military interventions. The war in Afghanistan has dragged on for over a decade without really accomplishing the whole mission, not because of our military, but because of our politicians.
   
   
   After the U.S. Attacks Syria, if such an attack takes place, what happens to the neighboring countries, especially Israel? Neither Syria nor Iran nor Hezbollah would feel constrained from sending multiple rockets there if they feared no U.S. response, or maybe even if they did. In any event, Israel would be left in a very difficult position, and the result could well be a wider Mid-East war in which we would have to fight.

Probably, some big financiers think they would profit from an attack on Syria, as they typically do from any war. As I see it, it would be of serious harm to America and Israel and would not be of any benefit to Syrian people vulnerable to Assad's attacks with either conventional or chemical weapons. The only realistic solution is a negotiated settlement, to be reached, hopefully, before Assad destroys even more thousands of people. The U.S. can probably have very little influence on such a settlement.

The Obama Administration and Congress need to think this through a lot more thoroughly than they have up to now. They should listen to Sarah Palin's advice: “Let Allah sort it out.”

Related articles

• Obama Will Advance Islam By Attacking Syria
• Obama's Stunning Reversal: "The Start Of The Historic American Retreat"
• General: Obama's backing wrong Syrian rebels